ILX Film Club, The (1924-2019)

The Kid and Safety Last are both good, but a bit too basic for my tastes, I thought these two Keaton films were a nice step up from that.

I considered adding the best-rated film for every missing year, on the plus side that would have meant not just Harold Lloyd and even Méliès, but unfortunately on the negative would also have meant sitting through many hours of D.W.Griffith.

I'm hardly the person to advocate for Griffith--I've never voluntarily seen a film of his, just what I saw in film class; maybe j.lu would want to--but there are at least two films of his that are highly regarded (Way Down East and Broken Blossoms; I've seen the former) and I'm pretty sure have zero to do with the film that destroyed his stature or the follow-up that was supposed to excuse that one. But if you can't get past the fact that it was him who made them, I can appreciate that.

Yes, omitting all of Griffith, as good as it might feel, is not an accurate portrait of film history

sorry, didn't want to get into the griffith debate again, will just say that I don't agree and leave it at that

I mean, it's empirical but whatev

(Intolerance and Broken Blossoms aside, I don't even particularly enjoy Griffith that much.)

I'm doubtful there's any such thing as "an accurate portrait of film history" but even if there was I don't see that that is what we're supposed to be doing on this thread?

Been having a look through and these are the films which would be added if I followed the "one for every year" rule

Voyage dans la lune, Le Méliès, Georges 1902
After Death Bauer, Yevgeni 1915
Intolerance Griffith, D.W. 1916
Outlaw and His Wife, The Sjöström, Victor 1918
One Week Keaton, Buster & Edward F. Cline 1920
High Sign, The Cline, Edward F. and Buster Keaton 1921
Nosferatu Murnau, F.W. 1922
Safety Last Newmeyer, Fred C./Sam Taylor 1923
Unholy Three, The Conway, Jack 1930
Shanghai Express von Sternberg, Josef 1932
39 Steps, The Hitchcock, Alfred 1935
Make Way for Tomorrow McCarey, Leo 1937
Holiday Cukor, George 1938
His Girl Friday Hawks, Howard 1940
Double Indemnity Wilder, Billy 1944
Enfants du paradis, Les Carné, Marcel 1945
Victims of Sin Fernández, Emilio 1951
Kes Loach, Ken 1969
Goodbye, Dragon Inn Tsai Ming-liang 2003
Transporter 2, The Leterrier, Louis 2005
Clock, The Marclay, Christian 2010
Field in England, A Wheatley, Ben 2013
First Cow Reichardt, Kelly 2020

Love Holiday, love Kes. Simple as.

Oh god, THE CLOCK needs to be added and mandatory

and Goodbye, Dragon Inn

Victims of Sin Fernández

One of my favourite screenings over the last few years.

One Week Keaton, Buster & Edward F. Cline 1920
High Sign, The Cline, Edward F. and Buster Keaton 1921
Nosferatu Murnau, F.W. 1922
Safety Last Newmeyer, Fred C./Sam Taylor 1923
Unholy Three, The Conway, Jack 1930
Shanghai Express von Sternberg, Josef 1932

All highly recommended by me.

I'm not inclined to defend D.W. Griffith, although he definitely helped create the feature film as we now know it.

ok, I've done it.
not sure if a good idea, but I've done it.
(check link at top of thread for confusing new details)

would advise anyone about to watch Man With A Movie Camera to check the updated list.

downloaded the whole of jeanne d'arc without noticing the inter titles were in French. i might be able to scrape by with my cse grade 2.

Youtube link above has english subs, I think

Such a counter-intuitive move for a film in the pre-sound era, a court proceeding. Yet Dreyer makes it work squeezing every last drop of emotion from those faces. And of course the ending becomes plenty cinematic.

Agreed that Falconetti is superb.

The gender dynamics are so front and centre now, perhaps more than they were to people when it came out - this woman being gaslit and humiliated by a procession of grotesque men.

Failed to recognize Michel Simon, holy shit!

My own cultural context makes me read the situation as "these guys are horrible sadistic pricks, Jeanne is troubled and in need of the kind of psychological existence that didn't exist back then", but Dreyer himself was a believer, so I don't think that's how he'd read it?

Philistine alert: 80 min did still have my attention wandering, might not on the big screen tho.

the few seconds i saw when ffwding through it to check last night had some odd framing in it, shots of characters from their knees to their chins, made me wonder if i had a bad version. it also had fake red curtains added at the sides to pad it out to 16:9. :puke:

One of my most philistine takes is that Passion, though extremely great, is even better with the now-standard Einhorn accompaniment.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Voyage_dans_la_lune_title_card.png

Le voyage dans la lune, Georges Méliès, 1902
Morbsies #562

Youtube link here - loads of versions on Youtube but this seems to be the best quality non-colourized, non-50fps one, if you prefer that then there are plenty of options. This version has a brass band backing which I don't care for, you can just mute it though.

Update! I had thought that the hand-colour version was lost, apparently it was found and restored. This seems to be the best version I can find - it claims to be 50fps but I can see no evidence of this.

Unlike most of the other films so far, I've watched this quite a few times. It's hard to judge by later film standards as Méliès doesn't really fit in the lineage, and if this were a history of the grammar of film-making, something like The Great Train Robbery (1903) would be more interesting, but it isn't, so it isn't. Obviously it's just a series of theatrical tableaux, but what tableaux!

https://i.postimg.cc/d012c5xZ/MV5-BZj-Jk-Mm-Ji-Ym-Mt-YTg4-My00-OWVi-LThh-ODIt-ZGM4-NGMy-M2-M5-Yj-Az-L2lt-YWdl-L2lt-YWdl-Xk-Ey-Xk-Fqc-Gde-QXVy-MDI3-OTIz-OA-V1.jpg

After Death, Yevgeni Bauer, 1915
Morbsies #1133

Youtube link

* A film which is likely too goth even for goths, it's essentially an advertisement for suicide.
* So, so beautiful though, all of the apparitions and that tracking shot at the party at the start is wonderful
* Male lead and director both dead within the next few years. Vera Karalli OTOH was one of two women present on the night of Rasputin's murder. Then she lived until the 70s.

More or less co-sign on all of that. This and Twilight of a Woman's Soul reached me at the right moment in my life to leave an indelible imprint.

Late to give my thinking on the Mélies: the version on Amazon has a dude narrating over it, was this perhaps common practice at some point in the silent era, pre introduction of intertitles? Anyway, it's great fun, reminded me a lot of Terry Gilliam (with the bonus that I know nothing about whether Mélies was an asshole).

fav letterboxd review, from user Allan:

Pretty realistic in the sense that if you did send a bunch of old guys into space, they probably would take a nap then try to kill some aliens and then expect a medal for it when they got back

After Death - This is the first thing discussed itt that I'd never even heard of! I think I never considered that pre-revolutionary Russia would have a film industry, Eisenstein and co cast such a large shadow.

Anyway, enjoyed this a lot! A lot more plot focused than most of what we've watched so far, could easily imagine it as a short story. Very Russian, of course. Do think the ending could have been pulled off more economically, I suppose they're trying to build towards a crescendo but it doesn't really escalate so much as maintain the same level imo.

that dinner party long shot was beautiful

watch my french jeanne d'arc. very strange framing at times as i've probably said before. and the burning at the end (spoilers) lingered on the corpse to an uncomfortable degree.

also recognised one shot of the cover of that adorable cd i have

https://www.discogs.com/master/20907-Adorable-Sunshine-Smile

the other startling thing, towards the end, is when he tracks people moving from in front of the camera to behind it - he rotates the camera in an axis such that the shot ends up upside down.

https://i.postimg.cc/7LpQnB7Y/517px-Intolerance-film.jpg

Intolerance, D.W. Griffith, 1916
Morbsies #956

Youtube link

I have 50 minutes left on my rewatch of this, so will save my thoughts for a bit.

Yeah, sitting this one out.

Remove Bookmark from this Thread

I'm actually curious what Camaraderie has to say!

I am compelled to drop Morbs' own review of the movie here:

https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/intolerance/

I'm glad he settled on "influential" rather than "innovative"

Also, I'll do clem's work here and link up Kael's review too (which, very much a product of its time, does not stop short of calling Birth of a Nation a great film):

https://letterboxd.com/notpaulinekael/film/intolerance-loves-struggle-throughout-the-ages/1/

I think it’s fair to say that Movies Silently isn’t a fan of Griffiths or Intolerance.

One pervasive myth is that DW Griffith apologized for the racism of THE BIRTH OF A NATION by making INTOLERANCE, which examined the ways prejudice caused suffering throughout history.

So let's just cut down that argument at the knees, shall we? pic.twitter.com/xfwuvEceib

— Movies Silently 🐀 (@MoviesSilently) October 13, 2022

Yes, I have been very tempted to post her threads on DWG.

Very fair game

I agree that the idea that Intolerance was any kind of mea culpa is basically bunk

I mostly agree with the review; I saw the film long ago, bug-eyed over its bat shit insanity. But, yeah, it's not a mea culpa so much as a chance to do TBOAN again but more bat shit.

I will say I had a lot of fun traipsing around the collapsing sets of Intolerance in the video game LA Noir.

OK, finished it! The second time I've seen the film and it was a lot easier to follow each of the four plots this time. I would say I have softened on it slightly, there are certainly some parts I liked, but overall I still feel its importance is wildly overstated and much of it is bad or dull.

Ancient Babylon - this was by far the strongest section, in fact if this were the film I'd probably be singing its praises. The cinematography, the set design, the sheer scale of the thing are incredibly striking and impressive. Constance Talmadge puts in a brilliant performance too. But what is the story? under the spectacle it's a load of nothing, just a few bible verses padded out.

Jesus - this story is barely there, less than ten minutes of screen time, but still manages to be heavy-handed incoherent antisemitic guff.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre - Presumably here as a concrete example of intolerance? But what do we have, an evil woman plans a massacre, the massacre takes place, that's pretty much it, not even interestingly staged, though the killings are surprisingly graphic.

Modern day - This is the core of the film really, everything else is presumably here to illustrate it. There is some good cinematography here, some shots are stunning, some editing is fairly good, the chase scene with the car and the train is great (but very much bolted on to the story without any justification) But also what the fuck is any of this? A factory owner massacres his workers for striking, a man is unjustly convicted of murder, but somehow this is not the focus. Instead the moral is that social services and welfare charities are the greatest evil of our times because they take money from honest capitalists and are also ugly jealous old women who take babies away? I mean, what exactly the fuck is that? That's your takeaway, DWG?

Also there is a good deal of poor editing and direction in this section, I know it's 1916 but if we are crediting DWG with innovations then I have to say his tricks are not original and others have done better.

Overall I also feel like such a long film covering four separate time periods should have a central story or concept uniting the threads, but it's completely missing. I can understand how the French story is about intolerance, but the other three have nothing to do with it by any sane definition. So I'm left trying to imagine what DWG's point is beyond "baddies do bad stuff" and I can't see what it is at all. "The baddies should tolerate the goodies and then get out of their way, the goodies are under no obligation to tolerate the baddies"? I feel stupid even trying to figure it out, it's just his feeling that he has a right to his prejudices and nobody should dare challenge him, presented with a massive budget over several hours.

The cases I see for why this film is important are innovation and influence, I would question the first of these as above, the second I'm not sure where to go with - yes there later were some epic dramas which attempted a similar scale. Would they have existed without Intolerance? No idea, it seems perfectly possible, but could concede that - and then what? Why does that make this worth watching?

ugly jealous old women who take babies away?

a menace of our times imo

fwiw there is absolutely a terrible history of govt social services being paternalistic-to-outright-hateful to the working class in general and marginalised groups within it in particular, and adoption in particular is a huge can of worms within that context. griffith def not the guy to tackle that tho.

I mean he specifically says they are motivated by being too old & unattractive to attract men any more, right at the start of the film.

Those old caption writers sure did go hard back in the day